So I’ve been trying to figure out exactly which blog I would write in regards to the upcoming EU referendum. Those that know me will understand I’m passionately for staying IN for multiple reasons, but with such a number of different concepts to this debate, It’s been difficult to really nail down how I wanted to approach this subject.

Recently I’ve seen social media pop up a Leave EU video which has been making the rounds across Facebook and Twitter, so I thought I’d break each statement down. They are through this blog in quotations.

Hello Britain this EU Referendum has been made to look, really, rather confusing, but’s it’s actually all quite simple.

Leaving the EU is anything but simple, for one thing every Brexiter must realize that we would need to renegotiate 124 trade agreements with countries from around the world. Some of these trade agreements have taken decades to organize as part of the EU, the American Government for one example , have estimated that it would be at least 10 years to hash out any trade deal with the UK.
The civil service (those un-elected bureaucrats from our own country ) are woefully underfunded and understaffed to be able to complete these trade agreements in any quick time frame. The LSE (London School of Economics) have concluded that we would need to hire thousands more consultants, at a considerable cost to the British tax payer; worth bearing in mind that Britain has not negotiated its own free trade agreements in 4 decades. This doesn’t even take into account the amount of funding needed to match EU subsidies into our businesses and services, and where that funding would actually come from if we left. So even taking the best possible outcome for Brexit, the situation is far from simple.

Britain as part of the EU is in a free trade area that spreads from Iceland to Turkey. Free trade is great because it makes trade easier, however not all countries in this area of EU members and no one’s proposing we would ever leave this trade block, if we exit the EU; least of all Germany who earns billions selling us their cars.

Turkey is not exactly in the free trade area, it’s in a customs union, and it pays tariffs on a lot of its products into the EU.

The UK goods trade is 55% higher being part of the Single Market, this accounts for over 130 billion pounds into our country in the last year,and an extra 670,000 made from every business that exports to the EU. So of course we’d want to stay in the Single Market – in fact Ukippers, and the Ultra right-wing Tories backing Brexit, have stated quite clearly that they don’t want to leave the Single Market. But if that’s the case, then why would we want to leave the EU where we can have a say on how the Single Market works and operates? We would have to abide by all the same rules and regulations exporting or importing with the EU, without any power to change what these are.

Britain voted to join the EEC back in 1973, when it looked like regional trade blocks were the future, this was long before the internet or mass container shipping, and the Soviet empire was in full swing. Technology has since made the idea of local trading unions obsolete, as it is as cheap and easy to do business anywhere in the world. Britain’s future is way beyond the EU, remaining in the EU means we can’t negotiate favourable trade or business deals, we’re stuck with whatever the un-elected commissioners think is best.

I have 3 issues with this;

The first is that the EU is set up to negotiate as part of a trading block of 500 million consumers, we pool our sovereignty, and together we are the richest trading block in the world; this leads too considerable advantages in negotiation up against the likes of China, US and India. It also is categorically NOT cheap and easy to do business anywhere in the world, you have to negotiate the conditions of products, warranties, and price, how these are transported, and whether they are environmentally friendly. There are always conditions, regulations and the effects of our own local trade to consider.

Second, no business outside of the EU wants Britain to leave, literally NONE.

Let’s also take a quick look at the world so, apparently open to favourable trade deals which can be done quickly and easily, once we leave the EU.

Barack Obama President of the United States – “It could be five years from now, 10 years from now before we’re actually able to get something done,” he told the BBC, adding that the first priority for the US would be to complete ongoing talks on a trade deal with the EU”.

XI Jinpin President of China and Chinese diplomats – “Britain’s potential exit from the EU worries Beijing, we believe free-market supporting Britain strengthens the EU, which we see as an important ballast to American market dominance

Secretary general of theFederation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) Dr A Didar Singh – “Brexit could endanger the flow of investment and personnel by diminishing Britain’s role in providing access to Europe” Bharatiya Janata Prime minister of India – “We see the UK as an entry point into the EU”

The list goes on; one quick test to any Leave campaigner is to ask which country thinks Brexit is a good idea? The answer is only Russia for obvious reasons, but it does highlight the paradox to their argument that we can suddenly trade better with the rest of the world, whilst the rest of the world is saying “what the f*ck are you doing!”

My last point is that commissioners don’t decide who we trade with, we do. We sign treaties, we debate with our MEP’s and our Council of Ministers – all elected – and the commissioners are appointed by each member state, vetted by the European Parliament. They are chosen far more democratically to our national counterparts the British Cabinet.

In the past decade our trade with the EU has fallen from 55% to 45%, and this idea that we must merge our political institutions for the sake of a shrinking minority of our commerce, is just frankly stupid. But is Britain too small to compete? Britain’s the 5th largest economy in the world, has the 4th largest military budget, is a founding member of NATO, a permanent seat holder on the United Nations Security Council, the G8 and the G20, has the world’s most widely spoken language, the World’s best universities, and has a cracking history of maritime trade and independence. If Britain isn’t big enough to compete on the world stage, who the bloody hell is?

I find this particularly ridiculous for a few reasons.

One, we are one of the largest economies in the world, and have become so whilst being in the EU, can’t be that bad can it?

We have the 4th Largest military budget, I’m not sure what this has to do with trade unless we plan to threaten smaller countries with nuclear weapons – besides most of our funding goes on these expensive nukes which we would never use, and can’t be without the United States approval.

All Nato allies and Nato Chiefs from 1984 – 2014 have come out against the idea of Brexit, claiming it weakens Britain’s role in the world, including Lord Carrington, who served during the Second World War and was awarded the Military Cross for his actions.

We keep on talking about the UK being on the United Nations Security Council, but what happen if we left the EU? Remember that the SNP have fundamentally said this will pave the way to a new referendum. Northern Ireland are 75% in favour of staying, the idea of hard boundaries there is terrifying for some! So would little England really be able to justify a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council? Especially considering the other nations (other than Russia) want us to stay in the EU?

“If Britain isn’t big enough for the international stage, who the hell is?” Erm…. The US, China, India, Brazil and the EU as a group of nations – on our own with little exports, a militia instead of a military, and useless nukes, mean jack sh*t compared to the big boys. We have to stop pretending we still rule the world.

Those wanted Britain to remain in the EU, are using uncertainty and doubt, to spread fear.

Ok, so there is obvious scaremongering from both sides of the camp, but this is just a Tory strategy and they have always used scaremongering, just look at the general election in 2010 – “A vote for Labour will destroy our economy even further!” – and in 2015 – “A vote for Labour will lead to a coalition with the SNP!” They’ve never been able to talk positively about running the country.

Can we please pull off the blinkers and look at the Daily Mail, Express and The Sun, and bloody UKIP! They’ve been banging on about the EU controlling our lives, and immigration destroying the country and our culture since their inception decades ago. UKIP have dedicated entire television adverts to focus on how Turkey joining the EU would lead to the Islamification of our country, despite the fact Turkey won’t be joining anytime soon, and the focus on Islam is simply racist scaremongering. They even had that famous billboard with the pointing hand, “immigrants coming for your job!”Since the start of this blog, whilst I was searching on google, just look at the the ad which I came across at the top of the page,

Take Back Control Of UK – voteleavetakecontrol.org‎/‎5.23 million EU immigrants coming to the UK by 2030. It’s TIME!

No, the Leave campaign can own the title ‘Project Fear’, they’ve been peddling it for decades, and now it’s behind all their flagship arguments. For the record the Oxford migration observatory has concluded that Immigrants are significant NET contributors to our economy, which means they pay more into our system then they take out, on behalf of sensible British people, I would like to thank them for keeping our public services going!

They claim that each British household could lose as much as £3000 every year by leaving. But even if we pretend these idiotic claims were true, would £750 be really be all it takes to earn your democratic rights.

Nice to see they’ve just glossed over the amount of money you could lose from the decreasing amount of EU investment.

Is the ability to hire and fire our law-makers, democratic freedom’s fought for over 100’s of years, now only worth 2 month’s rent for a studio flat in Glasgow and a packet of Watzits. If 28 unelected British plutocrats tried to pull this crap, I’m sure we’ll tell them to bugger off too.

We do have unelected British Plutocrats, they’re called the British Cabinet, did anyone vote for them to be there? Let’s have a look and see which system is more democratic.

The Commissioners are appointed by member states, whilst the British Cabinet is appointed by the Prime Minister. Commissioners are also vetted by MEP’s who question their suitability and can force their withdrawal, the British Cabinet however is down to the discretion of the Prime Minister. Commissioners can only exercise powers given them by treaties and can only make proposals on the basis of treaties and following a work programme agreed by the Council of Ministers. The Commission cannot integrate EU further. Only a treaty could do that and UK can veto if it wants to. It’s fairly straight forward to see that the EU Commission is far more democratically decided and has significantly less power, in fact it’s bloody crazy how we cannot get angry about our own democratic system, but go decidedly bonkers about the EU, which is so much more proportional to each EU citizen.

However you vote, everything is going to change. The EU commission has made it quite clear they are on the path to closer, financial, legal and border integration. Staying on that bus would lead us having to ditch the pound sterling,

No one is saying this, I thought the Brexit camp were against “Project Fear”, besides we have our own commissioner, and we are an integral part of the EU, using the them vs us argument all the time is complete bollocks.

ditch our entire common law judicial system ,

The European Court of Human Rights (EHCR) which apparently is a problem, protects…

Our rights to a fair trial,

The rights to privacy,

Freedom from torture and degrading treatment,

Freedom of religion,

Freedom of expression,

Freedom from discrimination,

Freedom from slavery,

Protecting victims of domestic violence

Their is an argument is that we will keep these rights if we leave, yet I’m not sure what the problem is about staying the ECHR in that case?

ditch our borders; for the Euro, Bench trials, and Schengen in due course.

Remember when we heard about how we should leave the EU, but stay in the single market? …. Now try to name one single country outside of the EU which is part of the Single Market, which doesn’t have Freedom-Of-Movement?. The truth is it is fundamental to the principles of the European Single Market, so if you want the same trade deals, you have too accept Freedom-Of-Movement. In fact our own border controls, whilst we’re in the EU, are outside of the Schengen area. We’ve already negotiated a deal where we have control over our borders, and be part of the Single Market. And again no one is suggesting we relax border controls if we stay.

The Union is of course desperate to maintain control,

Again we are in this Union…

but I don’t think that a few measly threats, mean we need to commit our future to this authoritarian regime.

Authoritarian? Compared to the British system? Remember only 25% of our population voted for the Conservative party who formed a majority, MEP’s are chosen proportionally in the EU.

Besides we’ll be getting on wonderfully well trading, emigrating too and allying with other countries, without needing to give their government control over our laws.

Just ask any Brexiter which EU law they’re against, I’ve so far not heard a single one. Shouldn’t we be worried that we’re being taken out of the EU because of laws that are meant to be taking our freedom, yet those Leave campaigners can never name a single one??

Then ask them which country we’ll suddenly all be able to ally with and emigrate too , that thinks leaving the EU is a good idea. Again the answer is NONE.

So let’s use this one chance, to wish the EU the very best; be their trading partners, business colleagues, military allies and friends. But let them know we’ll govern ourselves here on out, thanks all the same.

I’m not sure the EU, our trading partners, business colleagues, military allies and “friends” from any were in the world agree with the Idea of Brexit, but hey ho, it’s only our relationship with the world we’re talking about.

Shouldn’t the Prime Ministers critics admit that they really hate anyone who has a hint of wealth in their life? If we don’t challenge these critics we risk having a house of commons which is stuffed full of low achievers, who hate enterprise, hate people who look after their own family, and know absolutely nothing about the outside world

This is a statement made during a house of commons debate by Sir Alan Duncan, who has claimed in the past that MP’s effectively live on rations and are treated like shit – For the benefit of any readers Sir Alan gets paid £74,962 a year, plus the ability to claim for a expenses for transport, and a furnished flat in London. He was also forced to repay £5000 in 2009 for claiming expenses to renovate his garden. To put that in perspective, the average wage in the UK is £21,000 a year.

I take real issue with this statement, of course there have been oppositional backlashes, he has been forced to issue a pathetic apology and this has already produced an aggressive debate on the definition of achievement; but even with this statement stuffed behind the greasy curtain of Tory political discourse, the fact remains that not only do Tory voters believe in this definition of success and achievement, the very structure of our society is moving in this cold, pitiless direction.

Whilst I was teaching in a secondary school, covering a range of subjects and different abilities, I took great fulfillment from working with children with behavioral issues or special needs. They carried me through every day, my life had some form of meaning and this led me to believe that teaching full-time should be my career. However with many friends, about 75% had gone into teaching and dropped out, or at least considered other career options. I was told repeatedly to try other careers first, to understand that teaching was a fraught profession struggling to cope with ever growing pressure of increased class sizes, endless paperwork, and receding wage levels.

I left to Australia to travel, play some rugby, and eventually try some other work. After one enjoyable party at the top floor of an apartment block In the centre of Sydney, I asked the hosts – who were the same age, with the same level of qualifications – “what jobs have led you to this amazing apartment and lifestyle?”, “Recruitment Consultant” they replied. This became an ultimate goal for me, surely a profession matching people to jobs would be fun, ethical and ultimately financially rewarding.

I first became a Career and Education consultant, a deceiving and pretentious job title, I basically sold highly expensive government diplomas in a telesales call centre. Unfortunately I happened to be quite successful, I was consistently hitting near the top of sales every month, I was quickly promoted to Team Leader, and even managed my own office after 5 months. I earnt enough money to rent a dreamlike studio in the centre of Sydney, in a big complex with built in swimming pool and gym, right next to Darling Habour. For all intents and purposes, under Sir Alan Duncan’s definition, I was, or at least on my way, to being “successful”

However I started realizing that a lot of the data gained to make phone calls, came from job applications to our sister recruitment company, who were creating fake jobs. Some of the people who I signed onto course’s, which would cost them $18,000 in the long run, were long term un-employed and desperate for anything in their life to change. Not that I realized at the time, they were a number on a board, they were the sale I achieved that I could smile about, as the directors treated the staff and I to free boozy boat rides round Darling Harbour on weekends.

Upon the revelation that I was in a soulless sales company with unquestionably disgusting sales tactics, I managed to build my sales rep enough to get into recruitment – I was advised that I needed to talk about two things for the interview, how driven I was, and how much money I wanted to make.
So I told them of the sports car I wanted (I can’t even drive), I told them of the houses I wanted to buy, the dream of an Armani suit (quite happy with Matalan) the sales I wanted to make so I could go on the company incentive trips to the Alps or Las Vegas ( all paid for), and I managed to gain employment with the recruitment company.

Now surely this couldn’t be as bad as sales, surely my last sales gig was an anomaly, private business can’t all be an unscrupulous, unsympathetic rat race in a consumeristic culture? I was proved wrong. Upon starting the indoctrination to change my character began, I was treated to luxury meals by the company, I was provided by free alcohol every Friday night in the city’s finest bars. Sounds great right? Well maybe if I was a promiscuous 16 year old again. My co-workers discussed money, everything they wanted to buy, how much they earnt, and if you were lucky something about football (I don’t even like football, but it was a nice change)

So the culture was superficial, staff lacked any depth to their personalities, but I still wanted to make money, I still wanted to be “successful” I wanted to make my family proud, and I had a point to prove to my all the doubters in life, so I persisted. My role was to ring as many specialists that had a CV or resume on our computer system as possible, I had to convince them that I had a job lined up for them ( I didn’t) and then ask them were else they applied for, and if they had any interviews. I would use this information and contact the managers of the jobs they had applied for, and try to sell them new candidates. This disingenuous tactic is called “Information Trading” and was eventually the reason I left, to some extent I enjoyed the nice suits, the luxury, the idea of an opulent future, I just couldn’t become passionate about lying 8 hours straight every day.

I left my nice flat in Darling Harbour, I’m back living with my parents in England, and I’m developing educational programs for Autistic children, for about 4 times less then what I was earning, and I finish every day with a great sense of fulfilment. And my future in this profession won’t lead me to making millions of pounds; in fact the glass ceiling tends to be below Sir Alan Duncan’s wage of 75k a year, that’s if the Tories don’t continue the trend on downgrading my profession.

My point is not to demean salesmen, recruitment consultants, or any other private business. If you want to make money, then go ahead and make money, just don’t value yourselves above people who earn significantly less.

If I end my life without multiple houses, without that convertible BMW, without ever owning a Armani suit, and I’ve managed to build confidence, self-esteem and happiness into children’s lives, I will be successful – and people who agree with arrogant prats like Sir Alan Duncan won’t take that away from me.

First and foremost we should address the cuts to flood defence, as well as multiple other reasons the Conservative party should take a major proportion of the blame, for the misery and suffering of many people who have had their lives ruined by floods.

Since 2011, 1114 flood defence schemes were suddenly left without funding, this was actually raised as a concern by the Environment Agency who stated that 1 in 6 properties were at risk of flooding. The biggest project to lose funding is the £160m scheme for defences along 12 miles of the river Aire and stretched right into the heart of Leeds , worth noting that the flooding round Aire has been the worst since records began.

Climate change is an obvious example of the recent extreme weather changes, although the contributing factors are quite complex. Adam Scaife, The head of Met Office, stated that the effects of El Nino are exacerbated with man-made climate change. El Niño is a phase of what is known as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle. The ENSO cycle is a scientific term that describes the fluctuations in temperature between the ocean and atmosphere in the east of the Pacific. This can increase storms in America, flooding in Europe, and drought with increased temperature in Australia. However the power behind these phenomena’s can be exacerbated by man-made climate change, leading to extreme conditions such as the flooding experienced in the North of England.

After the historic Paris Climate Change Agreement, 196 ministers committed their represented countries to limit their emissions to relatively safe levels, to achieve a worldwide temperature drop of 2C with an aspiration of 1.5C. Now to be fair to the Conservatives and David Cameron in particular, who made a rousing speech decrying “the Earth is in peril”, the UK led the way on the negotiations. This however was just a superficial move by the Tories, who have since brought in a number of un-environmental policies such as:

Allowing fracking in national parks

Scrapping support for onshore wind

Solar subsidies axed

Killing green home schemes

Selling the Green investment bank

Axing Tidal power

Now whilst adopting green policies wouldn’t change the flood issue at this present moment, the combination of cuts to flood defences as well as environmentally sustainable initiatives, show the incredible incompetence of the Conservatives to provide appropriate flood defence in the short-term, and tackling the root causes of flooding in the long-term.

Lastly we have to look at the internal draining boards prioritized to protect farmlands, over the safety of towns and cities downstream, which in particular have exposed thousands of residents in local areas to flooding. This combined with the burning of grouse moors, has significantly affected the amount of rain water that can be held in the area, draining at a faster rate downstream into urban areas; the reason why these moors are burned is to encourage a different habitat (the growth of heather) which wealthy land-owners use as effective nesting grounds for grouse. Before the man-made change in habitat, these areas naturally soaked up water, stored rich carbon, and increased bio-diversity. There’s one problem though, these landowners make a considerable amount of money from the shooting season, making £2500 – £5000 for a brace of grouse. However, the worst part to all this, is it’s actually subsidised by the Conservative government, who pay these wealthy landowners – the top 1% of the richest in the country – £56 per hectare; the owner of Walshaw Moor (Richard Bannister, a wealthy retail mogul) was paid 2.5 million pounds to continue dredging the area and burning moorland, this directly contributed to the flooding of 11,000 people in the Hebden Bridge area.

To summarise, the Conservatives contributed to the demise of natural flood defences, whilst cutting artificial flood defences, and making no commitment to tackle the intensifying problems with climate change. This has brought untold misery to victims of flooding, who have lost their homes, businesses and livelihoods; but given that the Tories are more concerned with money and public spending, we should also remind them to take a hard look at the fact this will cost the tax payer 5.8 billion in damages.

Why you only need to scratch the surface to find the figures misleading.

So after listening to Prime Ministers questions, It seems the Tories are very proud of their unemployment figures currently sitting at 5.7%, with 97,000 more people in work over the last 3 months. This has led to lots of pompous posturing from the Conservatives about their ability to handle the economy, and was reiterated in nearly every answer David Cameron gave.

“It’s this government that has the strong and growing economy, and I note, question 4, and still not a welcome for the unemployment figures!”

The method to calculate unemployment figures, measures the number of people claiming benefits or JSA (Job seekers allowance).This recording of unemployed people changed during the infamous reign of Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher; instead of those ‘registered’ unemployed, this changed to only count ‘claimants’ – this obviously reduced the number greatly as many unemployed people do not, for various reasons, claim benefits.

But I think the most constant shady practice from the Tories is the manipulation of statistics, for example, the Conservatives sickening attempt to redefine child poverty; after the Institute of Fiscal Studies forecasted this number would increase from 2.3, to 2.5 million children living in households 60% lower than the national average. This becomes particularly disingenuous when you take into consideration the manifesto promise “We have the right measures in place to drive real change to tackle the root causes of poverty”. When it comes to unemployment, the conservatives can simply cut the number of people able to claim JSA’s and benefits, thus making the ‘statistics’ believable that there is far more people in work.

The despicable practice of Iain Duncan Smith (Secretary for Work and Pensions) and his ilk , oversaw the new welfare reform bill, which included the useless universal credit program, and also administered the introduction of sanctions and the benefit cap; bearing in mind that people who were then sanctioned, suddenly slipped off the unemployment statistics.

The benefit cap also coincided with tougher fit-to-work schemes, this is used by the government to effectively force people in to work, most distressingly is the disabled people who have been hounded by this government under the contractor ‘Atos’. Worth mentioning that since Iain Duncan Smiths involvement in welfare, 2380 people have died after their claim for employment and support allowance (ESA) ended because a work capability assessment (WCA) found they were found fit for work.

Finally the issue of Zero hour contracts, probably the best example of why these unemployment figures should be scrutinised. The Conservative party’s official line on zero hour contracts is that with a free flowing market, employers should be able to offer contracts with intermittent hours, rather than a fixed number. Now this may be useful for working in bars or fast food restaurants as a student (an argument actually used by David Cameron in a Paxman interview in the run up to the last election) or an aspiring musician needing some work on the side, but this hardly supports anyone trying to build a life for themselves. Imagine not knowing whether you’ll be able to afford rent by the end of the month, let alone feeding yourself, your family, or save any money. These contracts have been adopted by a majority of big businesses hiring low skilled employees.

Recently there has been controversy over ‘Sports Direct’ with 72% of staff on zero contracts earning below the living wage, and being fired (under a 6 strike rule) for taking time off sick, or using the toilet for too long. This along with the restrictions of workers unions, who defend employment rights, shows the all-out attack on the working class of the UK, and why there is no cause for celebration on the recent employment figures.

On a finishing note I think the most important point I can make, is that with the economy growth up to 2.4% at the end of this year, with unemployment figures at 5.7%; the gap between the richest and poorest is still growing, the richest 1,000 families control a total of £547bn, rising by more than 112% since 2009, and own more than the poorest 40% of British households.

So basically, the recent growth in wealth means sod all to most of us, if the majority of wealth ends up in the hands of a tiny minority, and the employment figures represent poor people being forced to work in diminishing conditions.

Right let me explain to you what is happening since none of you have a fucking clue. Let’s get some things straight.

Ok so this is a direct challenge to the comment currently trending on Facebook by a man called Ricky Davies from Swansea. I find this as insulting as much as our beloved Prime Minister calling those on the opposition to bombing Syria , the “terrorist sympathises”. Each of Ricky’s comments are highlighted.

We are not going to war.

According to the Oxford Dictionary this is the definition of war: ‘A state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country’. So we can argue on definitions, but it’s a little harsh to say we “don’t have a fucking clue”, when the definition is down to interpretation, although I think it’s pretty obvious.

We are already bombing ISIS in Iraq. What this means is we are now going to bomb them over the Syrian border, where as before we were not allowed because we did not have the authority to do so. So if we were chasing a group of Isis militants before and they entered Syria from Iraq we would have to stop the chase and let them get away.

On this issue I agree, if you’re going to bomb Iraq, you might as well bomb Syria as Daesh does not share the same notion of a national border, however many of us would argue that bombing without a coherent ground force in BOTH countries is bad, although that wasn’t the choice given to Parliament doing the final debate.

We can now attack Isis strong holds which will prevent them sending terrorists to the uk amongst the refugees.

I think at this point we can really debate about ‘who has a clue’

7/7 Bus bombings:

Mohammad Sidique: Raised in Beeston, Leeds

Shehzad Tanweer: 22, Aldgate bomber Was born in Bradford but lived most of his life in the Beeston area of Leeds.

Germaine Lindsay: 19, Russell Square bomber Jamaican-born British resident Germaine Lindsay spent his childhood in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, not far from the other bombers’ homes.

No evidence of any of these citizens being trained in Syria, although the point is that these attackers where radicalized in the UK

Paris bombers:

Omar Ismail Mostefai: French born to Algerian parents, although the is hints that he was trained in Syria, he’d been radicalized way before this intervention, and warning flags were not responded to by the French secret service, and passed through Turkey borders as a citizen, NOT a refugee.

The Abdeslam brothers: Belgium born French national, no evidence of going to Syria or Iraq to be trained, grew up in a suburb of Brussels.

Bilal Hadfi: 20 year old French National, did fight with Daesh, was not a refugee.

Ahmad al Mohammad: Did appear to be a refugee, although his real name and identity are a mystery, I myself am cynical about why you’d carry your own passport and Identity documents during a suicide bomb, which conveniently don’t perish in the explosion, but at least there is some remnant of the clue this writer claimed to have about these terrorists.

Samy Amimour: French National, did join terrorists and returned to the country, crucially was radicalized before his departure.

Abdel Hamid Abaaoud: Born in Molenbeek, Belgium. The mastermind of the operation, radicalised before his first journey to Syria.

Hasna Aiboulahcen: French women, Radicalised during trips to Morocco to visit her father

Now although there is obvious evidence to suggest “bombing Daesh camps” would stop any kind of training, the point is that not one of these people were citizens of Syria fleeing chaos, they were radicalized on western soil. Now I’m sure you don’t want to bomb parts of Paris and Belgium, but having a clear community strategy and a policy of integration is precisely how you can highlight violent individuals, there were many issues with the lack of detection work done by the French secret service.

According to Nicolas Hennin, a French Journalist who was prisoner for 10 years by Daesh: he explained that part of Daesh’s strategy is to create divides between Islam and the Western world, through a perception that Europe are hostile to Muslims, by bombing civilians and turning away refugees. This is done to boost the reputation of Daesh being a safe haven for Muslims under the Caliphate.

We are not starting it and it is not the British government making things worse.
We have simply joined an elite list of world powers already bombing them.
These countries include
USA, Russia, China, France, Turkey and even little Kurdistan.
Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran are also bombing them, Who are both 98%+ Muslim and under sharia law.
So before you go mouthing off about it’s a racist thing, then how come them countries are also bombing them?

Again this is the perception by pro-bomb Syria campaigners that we are all in this against Evil, like some twisted Avengers movie.

To help explain the cluster fuck in the Middle-East, and why bombing Syria is NOT a clear cut choice

1st. Assad bombs protesters and civilians

2nd. Free Syrian army starts civil war

3rd. Assad releases extremist Islam prisoners who join the Syrian army to deter Western Involvement

4th: Syrian Kurds detach from other groups to form separate resistance against Assad.

So yes you’re not being racist, how can you be with so many different factions? However If you’re claiming that people opposing bombing Syria “need to get a fucking clue” I think you’re being hypocritical.

And before you go on about how the government is making a mistake how about you educate yourself on what is really going on instead of giving your clueless and irrelevant opinion.

Hmm, how ironic.

Do you really think that we are going to bomb the whole of Syria and not just the suspected Isis bases? If so then you should not have the audacity to even comment on the matter.

we know that approximately 165,000 civilians have died from direct war related violence caused by the US, its allies, the Iraqi military and police, and opposition forces from the time of the invasion through April 2015. The violent deaths of Iraqi civilians have occurred through aerial bombing, shelling, gunshots, suicide attacks, and fires started by bombing (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi)

Yes we do have the audacity, due to the facts and “clues” that some of us actually read up on.

Bravo David Cameron on making this decision which will save millions of lives and help put an end to Islamic state.

How dare you David Cameron for calling your opposition to bombing Syria Terrorist sympathizes, we need to work with all external countries for a peaceful resolution, with a united effort of Western and Middle Eastern forces to oppose Daesh as a joint group.

AND we most certainly need to take more refugees to show tremendous bravery against terror, against fear, for we will not give in to Daesh’s wishes, and we should never turn our back on innocent people fleeing from war.

I’ve heard murmurs of the Tea Party in circles of debate, but I never bothered to find out exactly what they stand for – All I assumed is that they were becoming a 3rd party in America’s democracy, which I thought was a good thing as a Liberal Democrat. You see, as a Brit that’s lived under 4 Tory governments, I couldn’t understand the discord with Obama’s politics, which have….well…been successful in boosting the economy with Keynesian style politics, I thought it should be a message to Europe! I still believe in the dangers of multi-national corporations, but this is where I and the Tea party fundamentally disagree.

I always join political groups, looking for a way to gauge world views and philosophy’s, that’s when I stumbled upon PoliticsNsuch. Unknowingly I pretty much joined the unofficial Tea Party page. I advocate a social democracy, and I was literally outnumbered with cries of anger “you hypocrite, YOU save vulnerable children if you care so much” and “It’s my right to not pay tax!”.

The conversation sparked anger within the first two comments, but became reasonable with passive persistence. The premise of the thread, was they believe in living by one soul ‘right’- the right to look after your own interest and property, and to not violate others interests and property. Now is it me?, or does that scream of paradoxes. So Instead, I wanted to question the moral philosophy of this ideal – “What about others round the world, are you going to stop dictators denying them the right you have” This provoked what I can only describe as a squawk of rhetoric, a flurry of definitions of what a “right” means, and, again, the usual insults, Trump style. How did talking about dictators get to this? In fact they were calling me the dictator for making them contribute to the progress of others.

So on to the next “right” I believe in, the right for clean water. The response was again based around definitions combined with these hilarious responses “Charlies using a laptop and phone, he’s being selfish to the poor!”. Somewhat bemused at what, passive responses and respect can do to these ,reverse- trolls!, I persisted. Eventually the barrage of insults gets fairly unproductive, and I question why I’m not currently doing the dishes in the kitchen, before I simply agreed to disagree and told them, that it’s all part of the democratic process to define rights, and we’ll see.

Finally after a few hours of free-from-Facebook time, so my girlfriend could stop hating me, I stupidly checked the group page, completely convinced that I would not comment to anything. And there was the statement that convinced me to persist, “No one gets to define my rights, I do, and you can f*** off if you think you can”

Not only was there a chance to delve deeper into the humanity of these human beings, but there was also a curiosity about American politics that needed to be fulfilled. So I quoted them the bill of rights was democratically decided, and I promise you it wasn’t until the next day – my girlfriends mood had shifted to infuriated by this point – I actually received anything but different varieties of “your stupid” in the debate. Isn’t it interesting that the people, that think a mob is shouting down their rights , currently look like a mob shouting down your rights.

So after one reasonably nice lady asked what I was suggesting, FINALLY, I spoke about something very simple, swapping corporation subsidies for foreign aid. – By this point I’m on my phone locked out of the house – It was peculiar, the host of the page (Elliot) asked me “so your basically saying I have to contribute money to the poor, by ‘the mob’ putting a gun to my head”, now to be fair there were plenty of comments stating that, contributing to the poor was good, it just wasn’t a vulnerable persons right for aid. This ‘Elliot’ persisted throughout the thread “ WHO VIOLATED THEIR RIGHTS FOR WATER!!” I think at this point as empathetic human beings, we fail in debate. Because rather than continue with a debate – which is turning into twisted definitions that humans should have blanket coverage with one right , with no contradictions – we try to coax empathy, some shred of understanding for fellow living creatures.

And there-in lies a chink in our armour, our sensitivity. This leads to articles bemoaning delusion people for caring to much with the heart, and not thinking enough with the head. These kinds of people shout “RHETORIC!!! RHETORIC!!!!, whilst simultaneously giving no clear response and calling you stupid – or though by this point its led to members stalking my Facebook page, not for contradictions of moral philosophy, but simply to make fun of me for being Australian, and my girlfriends complexion. This is both funny and scary, funny because I’m British, scary because it seems like Fox is poisoning peoples consumerist, elitist souls. Ok I’m being very judgemental and hypocritical about their intentions, turns out insults can change you, maybe that’s where humanities problems start.

At what point does this inward looking craze get out of control?. When pressed about how society decides the rights of human beings, a reply said, and I quote “I would bring a gun to the mob table, should even the odds 😉 “ As you can Imagine I asked “what if they all have guns” to be met by another strange reply “we would all decide democratically or have a war of attrition”. Who would you have a war with? with each other? Or are you saying that you would decide as groups, to have war, voting to decide the rights of each group within that war??? By this point – I’m not only very cold outside – but I realized I simply wanted to understand that point of view, I wanted to be in their shoes. But it feels like I’d be joining a life based on people who are angry at tax, a blame mob culture based on self interest, and feel that they deserve more than any other human being on the planet, and they base it on the delusion that they’re in a meritocratic society.

After an amusing attempt by the Tea Party group, to vote me out on a poll, they followed with congratulating each other on their triumph of collective bullying, although I was just amused that they couldn’t see the paradox with their collective thinking, and their mob culture. Then came Godwins law, usually reserved as a defence mechanism for UKIP candidates, I was called Hitler. In fact it went further, I (apparently) believed in the holocaust because Nazi’s formed a majority. Comments by the administrator stated, that in fact, I supported slavery, due to the ‘majority’ belief at the time. Rather than divulge deeper to this point, I simply asked “if a majority believe in something, who are you to say different?”. The very premise lost to these troglodytes, is that rights are definable, the bill of rights is part of a democratic process, rights are called amendments and, well I don’t know if these guys understand the definition of amendment.

Now the pièce de résistance, and the most telling value I can take from what might be a useless, and physically cold, exercise of understanding. Bearing in mind the thread has reached 500 comments with everyone shouting that I either, was akin to most evil people in history, or I’m so incredibly stupid to the point that special schools will have to put me in a down syndrome class, actual quote. The moderator and a few others, stated that the bill of rights was “decided by values of the Creator”, apart from the glaring contraction that people have different definitions of our “Creator”, is this all some subconscious white supremacy/religious issue? It’s one of those contradictions that is so obvious, and so infuriating during a form of mob harassment, you seriously question your own sanity.

For the record, I’ve started to learn more about the movement, and I feel for these Americans, we are all in a system with systemic problems of corporations without rules or regulations, chewing up the very concept of a free market. But the same institutions funnel a divided, self-interest philosophy to these people, focusing hate on any progress towards a truly meritocratic society

Before I leave this useful tool of venting, I want to show a scenario of their dystopian dream of the followers of Madmax. Imagine a world where without any public service, everything is privately owned. There is no regulation, so huge companies aggressively dominate each other economically, that’s apparently not a violation of any rights.

All products will be on a full spectrum of health and safety issues, maybe the richest can afford the only things that work and wont kill you? The reality is, that the Tea Party believe in a world where having the most money and stuff, is the definition of success. And the problem at the root of this, is that they don’t believe in the ability for human beings to enslave people’s rights economically.